On the right, in the right.....in the !!!!!
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
From: UK
On the right, in the right.....in the !!!!!
Long story, but the crux of a recent disagreement between myself and a more senior pilot, was that he had observed me deviating from the normal circuit pattern. I confirmed that I had, reason being that the circuit was busy and I was improving my spacing between myself and the A/C in front. The said A/C had joined from overhead, and turned infront of me, just as i was turning downwind. I felt the onus was on me to maintain spacing, as this guy was turning away from me and I would be hidden under his wing. This AC was descending and decelerating, so I widened my circuit, having attempted to decelerate so as not to fly up his rear end.
Senior Pilot disagreed, quoting air-law, saying I should have maintained my course and heading (on the right, in the right) and only take avoiding action if it became absolutely necessary. (ie avoid a collision)
As I was flying behind the said A/C, I had him perfectly in my sight, whereas he could not so easily see me. I felt, if not anything else, I demonstrated good airmanship in doing what I did.
There are other issues there, but I felt his attitude to be quite arrogant and not in the interests of safety.
I'm quite upset by this and they can throw the book at me if they want, but everyone got down safely and without any in-flight drama.
Any thoughts?
Senior Pilot disagreed, quoting air-law, saying I should have maintained my course and heading (on the right, in the right) and only take avoiding action if it became absolutely necessary. (ie avoid a collision)
As I was flying behind the said A/C, I had him perfectly in my sight, whereas he could not so easily see me. I felt, if not anything else, I demonstrated good airmanship in doing what I did.
There are other issues there, but I felt his attitude to be quite arrogant and not in the interests of safety.
I'm quite upset by this and they can throw the book at me if they want, but everyone got down safely and without any in-flight drama.
Any thoughts?
Last edited by GJB; 13th September 2002 at 14:43.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
Seems to me you used good judgement.
Better to be proactive rather than reactive.
With my private aeroplane, usually joining circuits at 150-160KIAS, will fly the pattern slightly wide to avoid slower moving aircraft. Many towers will ask those faster moving to do likewise.
Better to be proactive rather than reactive.
With my private aeroplane, usually joining circuits at 150-160KIAS, will fly the pattern slightly wide to avoid slower moving aircraft. Many towers will ask those faster moving to do likewise.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
From: home and abroad
Did you tell him what you were doing WHILE you were doing it? Did you inform ATC? And have you discussed it with your peers later?
Personally, I feel quite happy if my copilot adjusts his/her/our flightpath to maintain separation as long as I'm told and kept in the loop. As long as you err on the side of caution, I fail to see how they could throw the book at you.
good luck
MMM, did not mean to come across in a patronising manner..SORRY
But I agreewith 411A, better be proactive than reactive. As long as you maintain your CRM as well..
Personally, I feel quite happy if my copilot adjusts his/her/our flightpath to maintain separation as long as I'm told and kept in the loop. As long as you err on the side of caution, I fail to see how they could throw the book at you.
good luck
MMM, did not mean to come across in a patronising manner..SORRY
But I agreewith 411A, better be proactive than reactive. As long as you maintain your CRM as well..
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,704
Likes: 1
From: Who can say?
GJB, he may quote Air Law at you all day long. All you need to quote back at him is Airmanship.
VFR = See and Avoid.
There is no "Correct" circuit. He can maintain his "right" all the way to a smoking hole in the ground if he really wants to.
You did exactly the right thing IMO.
VFR = See and Avoid.
There is no "Correct" circuit. He can maintain his "right" all the way to a smoking hole in the ground if he really wants to.
You did exactly the right thing IMO.
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
From: UK
Thanks for the responses - very much appreciated.
Spent some time thinking about my actions and I would do the same thing again today.
I have also discussed with other senior colleagues who considered my judgement to be correct.
Feel now!
Spent some time thinking about my actions and I would do the same thing again today.
I have also discussed with other senior colleagues who considered my judgement to be correct.
Feel
now!
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's of significance whether there is an ATC unit at the aerodrome.
If there is, then the aerodrome controller should issue instructions to maintain a 'safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic' - things don't always work out the way they are planned and I would expect the controller to work with you in a case like this. Widening out your circuit may be a good way odf resolving your immediate problem but may cause a problem for those that follow you. Of course the Rules of the Air for avoiding aerial collisions must always apply if there is an immediate risk of collision.
If there is no ATC, then the Rules of the Air apply and they include conforming to the existing traffic pattern (which is commonly taken to mean always fly a standard overhead join unless something else is promulgated) and the one about the lower aircraft having right of way.
If there is, then the aerodrome controller should issue instructions to maintain a 'safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic' - things don't always work out the way they are planned and I would expect the controller to work with you in a case like this. Widening out your circuit may be a good way odf resolving your immediate problem but may cause a problem for those that follow you. Of course the Rules of the Air for avoiding aerial collisions must always apply if there is an immediate risk of collision.
If there is no ATC, then the Rules of the Air apply and they include conforming to the existing traffic pattern (which is commonly taken to mean always fly a standard overhead join unless something else is promulgated) and the one about the lower aircraft having right of way.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
Recently had a not disimilar incident (class C and ATC) but without the "verbal hassle", and did much the same as you. I was sufficiently concerned about it though, and made a CHIRP report.
Approaching from the southwest, I was cleared to join downwind left hand for 25, with no mention of any circuit traffic. On approaching the start of the downwind leg I saw another aircraft climbing up on the crosswind leg on my left, but no instructions from ATC to either of us. I was on the right, right? But, like someone else said, it was abvious he hadn't seen me (and neither had ATC it seems) and had no intention of turning behind. So I bent it right a bit and stayed "outside" of him - then got a mild b****cking from ATC for forgetting the downwind call.
The CHIRP people's response was the "in the circuit its see and avoid", as some one else said, earlier. Seems to me you did right, right?
Approaching from the southwest, I was cleared to join downwind left hand for 25, with no mention of any circuit traffic. On approaching the start of the downwind leg I saw another aircraft climbing up on the crosswind leg on my left, but no instructions from ATC to either of us. I was on the right, right? But, like someone else said, it was abvious he hadn't seen me (and neither had ATC it seems) and had no intention of turning behind. So I bent it right a bit and stayed "outside" of him - then got a mild b****cking from ATC for forgetting the downwind call.
The CHIRP people's response was the "in the circuit its see and avoid", as some one else said, earlier. Seems to me you did right, right?
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
Spitoon,
As an "ex" tower controller myself, I was also a bit surprised, both at the lack of ATC instructions in the circuit, and the CHIRP response. However, it did take place outside the UK which might have influenced their comment (because of jurisdiction, not logic ).
When the incident happened I had been on the point of asking ATC for instructions, but then decided to make sure I was *safe* first. My reaction was that *I* had done something wrong, but on later reflection I couldn't really see what.
I think it is much the same for GJB, who started the thread.
As an "ex" tower controller myself, I was also a bit surprised, both at the lack of ATC instructions in the circuit, and the CHIRP response. However, it did take place outside the UK which might have influenced their comment (because of jurisdiction, not logic
). When the incident happened I had been on the point of asking ATC for instructions, but then decided to make sure I was *safe* first. My reaction was that *I* had done something wrong, but on later reflection I couldn't really see what.
I think it is much the same for GJB, who started the thread.
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
From: South O Equator
GJB, we all have a story like this one and the fact that it was a non-event in that your pax wouldn't have known anything of it and that everyone landed safely indicates you did exactly the right thing.
I remember during CPL training I was flying with the CFI and had a radio failure. We'd practiced coming in and landing with a simulated radio failure a couple of times before then and I did exactly what I'd been taught. The CFI told me that they'd take over if I didn't pull my finger out before we got overhead even though I was doing it exactly the way I had been taught.
I brought this up after the flight and was told that in a for real situation you would do things earlier than in practice! Why not practice it that way then!!??
You did the right thing and I'd rather be a passenger in your plane than with the senior pilot you flew with and seeing a windscreen full of plane before turning to give him a bit mroe room.
I remember during CPL training I was flying with the CFI and had a radio failure. We'd practiced coming in and landing with a simulated radio failure a couple of times before then and I did exactly what I'd been taught. The CFI told me that they'd take over if I didn't pull my finger out before we got overhead even though I was doing it exactly the way I had been taught.
I brought this up after the flight and was told that in a for real situation you would do things earlier than in practice! Why not practice it that way then!!??
You did the right thing and I'd rather be a passenger in your plane than with the senior pilot you flew with and seeing a windscreen full of plane before turning to give him a bit mroe room.
